Pope Francis Makes Headlines Again! Is Every Religion A Way To Arrive At God?

 

Vatican News reported, “During an interreligious meeting at Singapore's Catholic Junior College, Pope Francis urged young people to work toward unity, become responsible citizens, and pass down what they have learned to future generations.” He continued, “God is God for all, and if God is God for all, then we are all sons and daughters of God.” Pope Francis also said, “All religions are paths to reach God. They are, to make a comparison, like different languages or dialects to get there. But God is God for everyone.”¹

Is every religion a way to arrive at God? Are all religions the same? Do all religions lead to heaven?

No.

In an earlier blog of mine, I explained why all religions cannot lead to God & heaven:²

“Three reasons could be posited to explain why all religions cannot lead us to God and heaven:

            1. Every major religion contradicts the other.

            2. There can be only one God.

            3. There can be only one means of salvation.

Every Major Religion Contradicts The Other

Every major religion claims exclusivity. I provided a glimpse of the exclusivity claims of the major world religions in an earlier article of mine, entitled Exclusivity Claims of Major World Religions. While discussing the exclusivity claims of Hinduism, I wrote, “Hinduism excludes other religions based on its core doctrines. Consider the doctrine of God in Hinduism. Brahman, the absolute God of Hinduism, is a mysterious being.

Although Brahman is one God, he manifests in innumerable forms, “Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith which acknowledges polytheism as reflective of the diversity in God’s creation. God is one, but also many. He manifests Himself in innumerable forms and shapes.” But the God of Christianity does not manifest Himself in innumerable forms. Hence, Hinduism should exclude Christianity or Islam on the basis of the Godhead. The same holds true for doctrines such as karma and reincarnation, which absolutely contradict Christianity and other religions.”

Even Islam, Buddhism and Judaism claim exclusivity. So if every religion contradicts the other, then all religions are not teaching the truth. Only one religion would teach the truth, whereas the others do not.

Historic Christianity also claims exclusivity. Conservative Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven. This belief renders every non-Christian as an eternal inhabitant of hell. But the conclusion that Jesus is the only way to heaven is predicated on the premise that Christianity is the only religion that makes valid truth claims.

Since every religion contradicts the other, all religions cannot lead man to God and heaven.

One God

God is the ‘maximally great being’ or the ‘greatest conceivable being’ or the ‘greatest being possible.’ The maximally great being should be omnipotent (infinitely powerful), omniscient (possessing unlimited knowledge), and morally perfect, to say the least. 

Such a maximally great being ought to be singular. In other words, there cannot be two maximally great beings. They cannot be maximally great if they are equal. Maximal greatness signifies that one of the two would essentially be greater than the other.

Therefore, there can only be one God.

One Salvation

Salvation is the deliverance from the power and penalty of sin. Sin is an assault on God. In other words, sin is the transgression or violation of God’s commands.

If God is one, then the sin of mankind is essentially against that God (because there are no other Gods). Hence, there can be only one means of salvation, for it is that one infinite God who offers the means of salvation to erring finite humans.

But what if God offers two or more means of salvation to the erring humans? Is this possible? It is possible as long as the means of salvation do not contradict each other.

There are two major means of salvation offered by the major world religions. While Historic Christianity offers salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ, the other major world religions teach salvation through good works.

Salvation by grace through faith is a non-negotiable tenet of Historic Christianity. Historic Christianity teaches that mankind cannot perform good works (i.e. be perfectly obedient to God) to go to heaven because man is a perpetual sinner. Hence, God graciously sent HIS Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to die on behalf of all (the sins) of mankind, thereby paying the penalty for sin, which is death. Christ then overcame death through HIS resurrection and ascension. Thereby, those who believe in Christ are saved by virtue of Christ’s one-time perfect sacrifice and their belief in HIM.

Contrarily, the other major world religions teach that mankind would have to perform good works i.e. being obedient to God, to go to heaven. For instance, Islam teaches that worship of God and obedience to his commands are the prerequisites for salvation.

Hence, salvation by grace through faith contradicts salvation through good works. Since the means of salvation in other religions and Christianity contradict each other, there could only be one way to be saved.

Conclusion

There is only one way to God. All religions cannot lead us to God. Those believing that all religions lead to God are treading dangerously. They are risking their eternity.

If you are in that boat, think this through and make sense of your life. If you pray to God to lead you to the right path, HE will. May the truth set you free.

 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-09/pope-calls-singapore-youth-unity-during-interreligous-dialogue1.html

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2019/01/three-reasons-why-all-religions-do-not.html

Websites last accessed on 15^th September, 2024.

Cult Watch: The Enemy Within – Progressive Christians!

            Your friendly neighborhood Christian may be friendly and even brotherly but may not be a Christian after all. He is a greater threat to the salvation of a sincere Christian.

            He is the Progressive Christian or a Liberal Christian – the cunning wolf in Christian spiritual attire.

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity cannot be ignored. We cannot label them as non-threatening. They are real and they pose a terrifying challenge to our spiritual wellness.

            Who are progressive Christians? A progressive Christian (or about to be one) would utter the following comments (thanks to Alisa Childers’ blog), which disagree with the core tenets of Historic Christianity:¹

1.      Sin doesn't separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good....

2.      God didn't actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms....

3.      We don't really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy...

4.      God wouldn't punish sinners—He is love....

5.      Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we've misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history...

6.      It's not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it's our job to just love them....

7.      The resurrection of Jesus doesn't have to be factual to speak truth....

8.  The church's historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework...

9.    The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted....

10.  That Bible verse doesn't resonate with me....

11.  I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people....

12.  I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell....

13.  I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue...

            Whenever we are in a discussion with our Christian friends, we should red-flag these comments if our friend utters one or more of them because that should remind us that he/she could be a progressive Christian.

            Another way to identify a liberal or a progressive Christian is by observing his loyalties, which would oppose the Historic Christian and align with the Progressive worldview. A progressive Christian would typically believe that:

            1. Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

            2. Jesus will save all mankind (Universalism or Inclusivism).

            3. Jesus will not send people to hell or there is no hell or another variant of this.

            4. LGBTQ practices are legitimate. {They will subsequently approve ‘Polyamory’ (the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.) and even Pedophilia!}

            5. Abortion is legit (pro-choice).  

            These are a few examples.

            In essence, the progressive or liberal Christians would hold to a lowered view of the Bible, which means: [Emphasis Mine].²

A. REINTERPRET THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY: Progressivism challenges core doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was crucified to atone for our sins, but progressives tend to argue that Jesus’ death was merely a martyrdom. The Scriptures claim that Jesus is divine, but often progressives only emphasize the humanity of Jesus–unitarianism grew up with Western liberalism. The sinfulness of humanity is generally downplayed by progressives, who tend to think that all people are basically good and not really in need of salvation.

B. HISTORIC TERMS ARE REDEFINED: Progressives often are beholden to the ideology of science and to the most recent sentiments of the age, so they constantly reinterpret the Scriptures to keep up with Western sensibilities.

Often progressives use biblical language, but they shift its meaning: the resurrection becomes a metaphor instead of a historic fact, holiness becomes liturgy instead of sexual purity, and the like. Same language, but new meanings.

A big one is “love.” If we allow a 21st century definition of love to be imported back into historic, biblical Christianity, we may end up with something quite different from what the Scriptures mean. “Love” in the Bible means putting the needs of others first, but “love” in 21st century thought means accepting or embracing whatever a person wants you to accept and embrace.

That’s not biblical love.

C. THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL MESSAGE SHIFTS FROM SIN AND REDEMPTION TO SOCIAL JUSTICE: Justice is a central concern of the Scriptures, and it should be a central concern for disciples of Jesus. But “social justice” is a relatively new term — one not found in the Bible. It’s a fine term if it means treating people fairly, fighting racism, standing for life, and the like.

But often the term “social justice” means little more than political ideology that is largely disconnected from biblical justice. Progressives tend to focus on social justice to the exclusion of the Gospel. The Gospel is not about God making paradise of this world, but God raising us into a new heaven and earth. When social justice replaces the Gospel, you won’t get the Gospel, but you also won’t get justice.

            How dangerous is Progressive Christianity? Would a progressive Christian go to hell? This is a significant question. (If progressive Christianity does not have any significant eternal ramifications, then why are we wasting our time striving to refute it?)

            Progressive Christianity believes that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. They do not believe that the Bible is the only book that Christians should believe and follow. They believe in the other religious books as if they are just as valid as the Bible. Sin and redemption are not the essential ingredients to the gospel. Social justice is the crux of their gospel. Progressive Christians believe that other religions are just as valid as Christianity is.

            This version of Christianity is diluted, warped, and distorted. It removes a Christian away from the Bible.

            This is not Christianity.

            Those who believe and subscribe to progressive Christianity may call themselves Christians, but they are not Christians in the biblical sense.

            The final argument for suggesting hell as an eternal destination for progressive Christians is this:

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity alludes to the notion that Christians can sin freely and without any guilt. They are not compelled to believe in Jesus or the Bible.

            Progressive Christianity espouses the notion that people can abuse God until their very last breath, yet not be hellbound. For instance, Richard Dawkins, in his book ‘God Delusion’ abused God as, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

            If Dawkins (if he is to be an Atheist or a Christian - hypothetically speaking) continues to abuse God until his very last breath, progressive Christians would believe that Dawkins will go to heaven or at the very minimum be annihilated (post his death), once and for all.

            A religion that teaches or even allude to the notion that one can abuse God, yet go to heaven, is a false religion that worships a mythical god!

            These beliefs of the progressives are against the core tenets of Historic Christianity.

            So sincere Christians, beware of the enemy within – the progressives!

Endnotes:

¹https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/5-signs-your-church-might-be-heading-toward-progressive-christianity

²https://christianchronicle.org/is-progressive-christianity-dangerous/

Websites last accessed on 11^th November 2020.

Dangers and Consequences of Christian Universalism: Cultic Status & Hellfire (Part 2)

Can a loving God send people to hell?

Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? No (Ezekiel 33: 11). Does God desire that all be saved? Yes (1 Timothy 2: 4; 2 Peter 3.9). Has God done everything for man to believe in HIM? Yes. So, can a loving God send people to hell? Yes! But the question is not fully correct! God does NOT send people to hell. Instead, people choose hell. C.S Lewis said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.” ¹ Another perspective is from the Christian analytic philosopher William Lane Craig, “The exercise of saving faith is not a work we perform for salvation, but merely the allowing of the Holy Spirit to do His work in us. Far from making unreasonable expectations, God is ready to equip anyone for salvation. We have only not to resist.” ² Man decides his eternal destination, and God allows it.

Annihilationism

Rev. John Stott and a few other Christian scholars endorse(d) the position of Annihilationism – a next of kin to Universalism. This position asserts that God will annihilate those who do not believe in Christ or that God will annihilate all of mankind after death. This position lends credence to immorality. A subscriber to annihilationism can think, “I can do anything, even evil, for I will be annihilated as the others.” Volitional justification of immorality in any form is an assault against God and HIS Word. Annihilationism reduces mankind’s purpose of living to a temporal realm as against the eternal life taught by the Bible. Annihilationism opposes the teaching of eternal life from the Bible.

A flavor of annihilationism that subscribes to annihilation of all mankind violates Bible. For instance, the believer of Christ longs for the Second Advent (coming) of the Lord for he confidently hopes to live with HIS maker forever and ever (1 John 2: 17; cf. Revelation 22: 20 et al.). Annihilationism deprives a believer of Christ of that glorious hope in the Lord, and Christ is unnecessary if annihilationism is factual.

Annihilationism also deprives justice to man. If a man is convicted of theft, he may be sentenced to a few months to a few years depending on the intensity of his crime. But if man kills another man, then he is imprisoned for life or executed. So a pattern is established in justice – unauthorized plunder of another’s wealth results in a lesser sentence, whereas unauthorized plunder of another’s life justifies life imprisonment or death of the murderer, which is a greater sentence. If a murderer walks away scott-free, all sane minds will term this decision as injustice. Justice is determined by the enormity of the assault, which in turn determines the degree of punishment.

Similarly, since God is infinitely holy and just, any sin against HIM deserves an infinite punishment. But annihilation does not offer an infinite punishment to an evil man. Positing annihilationism eliminates justice. An unjust god is not a good god. Since God, by definition, ought to be good, annihilationism implies a godless universe. But the Christian Universalist proclaims that God exists, so his doctrine of annihilationism is a contradictory and a self-defeating doctrine. Therefore, annihilationism is also not a wholly tenable truth claim.

Uncertainty (Partial Agnosticism)

Some Christians resort to uncertainty and proclaim that God can do anything (implying that HE can save all). First, if God can do anything, then God can create another God or God can lie or even commit adultery. If Christians hold to a contradictory view of God, they are affirming a mystical God – a God who exists only in the subjective, fanciful and mystical imaginations of these men, for God cannot contradict HIS nature.

Second, if God can do anything, then heaven and hell can also be true. But this is the very claim these Christians reject. Therefore these Christians don’t believe in their own statement that God can do anything, so their claim is a self-defeating claim.

Third, uncertainty negates the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our constant counsel (John 14: 16), HE convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16: 7-11), and HE is our guide into truth (John 16: 13). Uncertainty negates all the above functions of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, denying the concrete or reducing the concrete to a realm of abstract is blindness or insanity. This is akin to claiming that there is no sun, when the whole world can see and experience the radiance and radiation of the sun. The Bible is abundantly obvious about salvation. Only the insane or blind can negate the obvious.  

Finally the statement, “I do not know, but God can do anything” implies that “I know that I do not know and I know that God can do anything.” This statement posits knowledge. The statement, “I do not know” posits finite knowledge that he does not know. The statement that “God can do anything” posits infinite knowledge that God can do anything. This is a knowledgeable statement for it rejects all definitive truth claims but deceitfully masked under the pretext of agnosticism by these Christians. Uncertainty predicated on knowledge is untenable.

Christian Universalism mutilates the loving relationship between God and man

Christian universalism destroys the beautiful and a loving relationship between God and man. Imagine an instance where all athletes registered to participate in a race are informed much beforehand that each of them will win the gold medal – the highest prize. If every athlete is guaranteed to win the highest prize, practice prior to the race will be discarded. Therefore, the joy innate in the race would be nonexistent.  The athletes may participate in this farce of a race, but they will never be wholly involved with the race. A man can simply get out of his bed, participate in this farce of a race, and yet win the highest prize. If this be true, imagine the plight of an athlete who intensely practices for this race - his practice and preparation mean nothing. The race is reduced to a farce. No sane mind will even conceive this race, let alone implement it in today’s world.

Therefore, if God states that all men will inherit heaven (the highest prize), man need not be involved with God – he need NOT love and worship God. If man need not love and worship God, then there is no meaningful relationship between man and the living God.

Christian Universalism negates Evangelism

Evangelism intends to bring people into the knowledge of truth and eternal life. Christian Universalists declare that all will go to heaven. If so, why evangelize? How then would the Christian Universalist decipher all the verses in the Bible mandating us to evangelize (Daniel 12: 3; Ezekiel 3: 17-20; Matthew 10: 8b, 28: 18-20; Mark 16: 15-16; Acts 1: 8 et al.)?   

Consequences of Christian Universalism

By virtue of his universalistic persuasion, a Christian Universalist proclaims that:

1. Bible is corrupt – errant and fallible.

2. God is a cruel dictator without holiness, justice and true love. God’s commands need not be obeyed (e.g. evangelism is a non-factor).  

3. The roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit is a non-factor

4. A believer need not be holy, need not love and worship God, and can be immoral.

5. A believer need not repent or believe in Christ and need not produce the fruit of the Spirit.

Since Christian Universalism opposes the Bible, we can reasonably assert that Universalism is a heretical teaching and Christian Universalists are a cult (false religion). Christians espousing universalism are not Christians even though they may term themselves as a Christian. 

Although I don’t stand in judgment, the Christian Universalist, according to my understanding of salvation, lives dangerously close to an eternal separation from God.

Why does a Christian succumb to Universalism?

Let me suggest two reasons:

1. Unbelieving family and friends: If we believe in Christ, and our family and friends do not, then we suffer intensely knowing that those whom we love so dearly are hell bound. This constant pain gives way to Universalistic persuasion. Since universalism is an untenable proposition, a better mode of reconciliation would be to pray earnestly for God’s light to shine in the hearts of our loved ones. Meanwhile, we should gently and respectfully provide reasons for our hope in Christ, hoping that they would turn to Christ. 

2. Observing the apparently flawless lives of the non-Christians: There are many Non-Christians who through their apparently impeccable life put Christians to shame. So one could wonder how such a life would be deemed to hell.

This situation could be reconciled through the fact that all are sinners and imperfect in thoughts, words, and deeds. None can be as perfect as God. So an impeccable life is only impeccable within the confines of the act(s) that invoke impeccability (e.g. charity). Most surely, I cannot fathom a man claiming absolute impeccability. Therefore, since the flawless lives of non-christians are merely confined to certain acts, a reasonable conclusion is that all men are imperfect sinners worthy of infinite punishment.

Conclusion:

The Bible affirms that those who lead others to sin (disbelieve in God) are in a great and mighty danger – a potential loss of eternal life (cf. Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1-2).

Universalism states that all will go to heaven. If Universalists are right and the debunking of Universalism is incorrect, then all will go to heaven (I and the Universalists). This is a win-win situation for me. But if Universalism is nonsensical, non-Universalists will go to heaven but the Universalists will go to hell. For the Universalists, this is a win-lose situation (they lose, Christians win).

May we earnestly seek to follow and obey God in the light of HIS truth. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹ C.S Lewis, The Great Divorce.

² http://www.reasonablefaith.org/politically-incorrect-salvation#ixzz2ihiiIG00

Dangers and Consequences of Christian Universalism (Part 1)

Some Christians vociferously state that all people (irrespective of spirituality and/or morality) are heaven-bound. A few of the many reasons as propositions for their beliefs are:

(1) Christ’s atoning death is for the salvation of all mankind.

(2) The historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible is incorrect (E.g. ‘Hell’ lacks context). There is no literal (physical) hell.

 (3) One cannot comprehend truth (resorting to uncertainty). God can do anything.

(4) God will annihilate the unbelievers after their death (Annihilationism).

Christian Universalists need not believe in all the reasons presented above. They could believe in one or a few.

Necessity of Christ but Unnecessity of Belief in Christ:

Some Christians state that Christ and HIS finished work on the cross is necessary but belief in Christ is NOT necessary for salvation. This could be considered a scandal on God’s nature for at least a couple of reasons:

(A) Why should God sacrifice HIMSELF on the cross when people will be saved irrespective of their belief in God (Jesus Christ)? God could have merely uttered one salvific word to achieve universal salvation. Thus all people would be saved without the miraculous and gory drama of Christ’s saga.

(B) Is God so callous that HE sent HIS Son to ruthlessly die on the cross for something that’s virtually insignificant?

One could present more such thoughts. Positing Universalism should not scandalize God’s nature. God’s attributes cannot oppose each other - a perfect being cannot be good and evil at the same time.

If Christ is necessary for salvation, then belief in Christ is absolutely necessary. The statement, “Christ is necessary but belief in Christ is unnecessary,” is not a plausible statement. Please observe the following sequence of thoughts as an analogy:

(1)   Food is necessary for existence.

(2) Although food is necessary, belief in food is also necessary for a person to eat the food.

(3) If there is food and if the person believes in the food, he will eat.

(4) If there is food, but the person refuses to believe in it, he will not eat.

(5) Therefore, a person ought to have the food, and also believe in it to eat.

Factors that motivate unbelief in food could be the lack of: desire, taste, hygiene, contamination (poison) etc. If I do not believe in the food presented to me, I will not eat it, for it may not be tasty or it could be poisoned.

Although Christ and HIS atoning sacrifice is factual, one should place his faith in Christ so to have Christ live in him (cf. Galatians 2: 20; Colossians 1: 23, 27). If Christ is necessary, then belief in Christ is also necessary to appropriate Christ’s finished work of salvation into our lives.  

Necessity of faith in Christ can be presented through the coalescence of God’s attributes. Because God is holy, HE cannot tolerate sin, but punishes it with hell. This agrees with HIS attribute of holiness and justice. But God is also loving, merciful and compassionate, so HE gave HIS Son, our Lord Jesus, to die for mankind’s sins. Therefore, man should believe in Christ for Christ to live in him. A man, who does not believe in Christ, rejects Christ and HIS atoning sacrifice. An unbelieving man implies that Christ’s atoning sacrifice isn’t necessary for his salvation (cf. Luke 24: 26).

So we can reasonably conclude that belief in Christ is a virtual necessity for salvation, for unless Christ lives in a man through man’s belief in HIM, he cannot be saved.

Interpretive Conundrums:

When Christian Universalists affirm the relevance of the Bible, yet reject the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible, they create numerous conundrums in the Bible. Many biblical doctrines will be questioned for their validity and significance, of which some are:

Sin: Certain flavors of Christian Universalism dilute the doctrine of sin to a mere flaw. They do not categorize sin as an assault on God. The wages of sin being death is also appropriately diluted. Sins are characterized as mere character flaws i.e. hatred, filthy language, sickness, lust, pride. Flawed hermeneutics of the Bible contribute to this problem. If this were to be true, man does not have any overarching reason to detest sin. This then would promote rampant immorality.

Faith in Christ: How would the various verses proclaiming faith in Christ, as a means to salvation, interpreted by the Christian Universalist (E.g. John 3: 16 et al.)?

Some Christian Universalists interpret that ‘faith’ will be imputed (ascribed). But imputation of faith negates man’s freewill. If God imputes faith, can it also be argued that God imputes sin into man? In other words, when man sins, does he sin because God imputes sin into him? A God who imputes sin into man, is not a good God, and so ceases to be God. If there is no God, salvation is meaningless and so is universal salvation.

If belief in Christ is imputed upon man, then Christ’s death and resurrection was unnecessary. God could have simply imputed belief in people without the incarnate Christ in the picture.

Fruit of Spirit: If God wills all be saved, there is no need for the believer to produce fruit of the Spirit. So a believer who does not produce the fruit of the Spirit will be saved. This implies that a believer need not remain in Christ (John 15). Consequently, a believer can remain outside of Christ (disbelieve in Christ or remain disobedient to Christ) and still be saved. So not only is the fruit of the Spirit rendered meaningless, but also faith and abiding in Christ.

God’s Sovereignty: Christian Universalists proclaim that God is sovereign, so HE will save all.

This implies that God can do anything. If God can do anything, would the Christian Universalist subscribe to the notion that God can create another God or God can commit adultery or God can lie? If not, how would he negate these abnormal possibilities of God’s sovereignty that contradict HIS attributes?

Repentance: Man need not repent, but God will gift repentance to man. This is preached by some Christian Universalists. Imputation of repentance eliminates freewill of man. If man is not free, he is God’s puppet. How then would the Christian Universalist interpret the verses that teach freewill of the believer (Joshua 24: 15; Proverbs 16: 9; John 7: 17; Revelation 3: 20 et al.)? Additionally there are verses that term the believer as a child of God, friend of God, and disciple of God. These verses imply man to be anything but a puppet of God, so how would the Christian Universalist interpret these verses?

Negation of Hell: Some posit the reality of heaven and negate the reality of hell. They negate the reality of hell citing a lack of context. A cursory glance at a couple of passages describing everlasting punishment (hell), reveals judgment as context (Matthew 25: 46, context is in verses 31-33, and 2 Thessalonians 1: 9, context is in verse 5). Since everlasting punishment is stated within a context, hell is a reality.

Holiness: Christian Universalists also claim overtly or covertly that a believer need not be holy, for he will be saved even if he is not holy. If a believer need not be holy, he can be immoral, so is the Bible advocating immorality in a believer? Negating holiness in a believer also negates the holiness of God, within the context of Christlikeness. Is Christian Universalism positing a God who is not holy? A God who is not holy is not God.

Loving and Worshiping God: A believer need not worship or love God for he will be saved even if he remains obstinate in not loving and worshipping God. The Christian Universalist then needs to explain the many verses in the Bible that demand love and worship of the living God.

Obedience to God: God’s commands need not be obeyed, since the believer would be saved nevertheless. How then would the Christian Universalist interpret all the verses that mandate obedience to God’s commands?

Given the factors presented above, affirmation of the Bible is virtually immaterial when essential doctrines of the Bible are diluted and the attributes of God negated.

Translation of the Bible: Some Christian Universalists assert the corruption of the biblical translation. If the Christian Universalist claims that the translation of the Bible is corrupt, then he should discard the entire Bible. If some parts of the Bible are corrupt, wouldn’t it entail that the entire Bible may be corrupt? If the transmission of Bible is deficient in certain parts, doesn’t this also imply that God is intentionally misleading HIS people by not being sovereign over the transmission of HIS Word? 

I will stop at this juncture to maintain a self imposed 1500 (approx) word limitation of a single blog post. I will conclude my thoughts on Universalism in my next blog, where I will touch upon other relevant themes. Amen. 

The god Who Admits All People to Heaven is…

The tenets of Historic Christianity are stated, the nature of truth examined, and adequate reasons to reason out our faith in Christ have been offered in my previous blog. Let us now examine the god who welcomes anyone and everyone into heaven. For the purpose of differentiating the god of the Universalists from the living Triune God, I have termed the god of the Universalists as ‘unigod.’ I have posited few threads of argument from within morality (distinction between right and wrong or good and evil) to question the existence of unigod. But let me begin with worship, which is man’s response to God’s worthiness.

God should be worshipped for HE alone is worthy of our worship (adoration, thanksgiving, prayers etc.). God deserves this response from all people.

From the perspective of Historic Christianity, since God so loved the world, HE gave HIS only Son, so that those who believe in the Son of God will receive eternal life (John 3: 16). Salvation of mankind (those who believe in Christ) is an outcome of God’s love for man. Since salvation is God first act (through HIS love to redeem man from his sin), the believer loves God, and worships HIM always. The living God reveals HIS worth to HIS people by HIS blessed presence, and offers hope that HE, through HIS second coming, will fulfill all HIS promises (e.g. eliminate evil forever). Thus man worships this Almighty, loving, gracious and a compassionate God.

In contrast how does unigod reveal his worthiness to his people? All that he supposedly does is to save all men (universal salvation). If this is his only or primary revelatory act of worthiness, then this god (unigod) has placed himself in a quicksand situation. If one can negate the unworthiness of unigod by confuting universal salvation or expose unigod’s attributes to be unworthy of God, then by entailment, unigod need not be existent and hence worshipped.

The following arguments present the unworthiness of unigod so to eliminate him from the figment of any imagination.

Argument from Attributes of God:

Man, to love and worship God, should be aware of HIS attributes or nature. Minimally, love and justice can be posited as great communicable attributes. Attributes that are perfect in God but also found in humans to a degree are ‘Communicable Attributes.’

A god who loves all, even those who hate and abuse him, seems to be a loving God. But a careful examination of this love reveals cruelty. Please observe this situation, “I don’t want to be with god, but he forces me to be with him, and I have to spend the entire eternity with him” – this certainly is a depressingly bitter hope. Holding people against their will is slavery; none accept, agree, or admire slavery. This is dictatorship in its glory. But this is precisely what unigod does to people. Love in unigod is actually cruelty.

Minimally, justice is a disposition to do that which is morally right. Presence of ‘right’ requires a ‘wrong;’ this is analogous to rust requiring a metal. Since evil is rampant in the world, a common man expects the authorities to punish evil. But unigod, as an apparent ultimate authority, does not punish evil, for he allows even a horrendously evil person to enter into heaven.

At our workplace, we are extremely saddened and frustrated when we are victims of injustice. An authority who fails to provide justice is unjust or evil. By allowing a horrendously evil person to inherit the greatest good (heaven), the unigod reveals his unjust and evil attributes.

Since God cannot be evil and unjust, we reasonably claim that there is no unigod, and that universalism is nothing but a grand illusion.

Argument from Abuse:

If you are unaware of Dawkins’ intense abuse (an act of evil) of the living God, please read the endnote.¹ Proponents of Historic Christianity believe that Prof. Richard Dawkins, the bulldog of Atheism, will not go to heaven, if he doesn’t repent of his sins and accept Christ the Lord as his Savior. The God of Historic Christianity is a holy God and in HIM is no sin, so sin cannot coexist with God.

Please brace yourself for an unmitigated indecent assault on unigod. The unigod is an evil, corrupt, depraved, putrid, brainless blockhead; he is a nonsensical dummy, foolish idiot, insanely ignoramus dolt, a nincompoop, and a senseless monkey. Anyone can mock and thoroughly disrespect unigod.² Despite these abuses on unigod, Universalists will claim that unigod will still save me.

A god who accepts and agrees with abuse of any intensity is a god without perfection and holiness. Even man’s intrinsic dignity and self-worth prevents him from agreeing and accepting to abuses of any form or size. So a god who is awfully comfortable with abuses to the extent of supporting and welcoming evil is an evil god that resides only in the fantasies of certain minds.

Argument from Consistent Discipleship:

The Universalists claim that all people will be saved despite their good or horrendous nature. By the same token, would the Universalists accept abuse? They technically should accept, for if their god allows this upon himself, the Universalists, as the disciples of unigod, should unconditionally allow this upon themselves. Failure of the Universalists to accept horrendous abuses upon themselves or their families and friends will intuitively expose their opposition to their own god.

Historic Christianity asserts Christlikeness in the believers of Christ (Romans 8: 29 et al.). This is not a mere fact from the realm of the spiritual, but from the realm of the physical as well. Christians are called to bear fruit and much fruit (John 15).

The contentment and joy of a parent is directly proportional to the physical and behavioral resemblance of their child. For example, if a child resembles the goodness of the parent, the parent will be greatly joyful and contented.

But in the case of Universalism, there is no resemblance of unigod in the lives of its disciples. The children of the alleged unigod exist in reality, and the child is to resemble the parent, but the resemblance of the children of the unigod is much unlike the unigod. So we can reasonably posit that since unigod exists only in the imagination of the Universalists, they are unable to imitate their god.

Argument from Existence of God:

The ironclad moral argument for the existence of God states:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the analytic philosopher of religion, defines objective moral values as, “To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.”

We can extend the moral argument for God to:

4. The unigod saves all people, even the horrendously evil.

5. So there are no objective moral values in unigod.

6. Because objective moral values and duties exist, unigod does not exist.

In conclusion, Universalism is purely mystical and the alleged god who admits all people into heaven is imaginary, and resides only in the minds of the universalists. I simply cannot comprehend a god who saves all people. Please enlighten me if you disagree with me.

I will continue on this subject but from the perspective of Christian Universalism (Christians subscribing to Universalism) in my next blog. Amen.

Endnote & References:

¹ Dawkins’ view of God in his book ‘God Delusion:’ “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

² This indecent attack on unigod is perfectly reasonable, since unigod is existent only in the dreams and imagination of universalists.